SynthesisBMJ open respiratory research2025
Sublobar resection or lobectomy for stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Nodal Upstaging and Oncologic Outcomes After Segmentectomy Versus Lobectomy for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Residual lung volume changes after thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy based on 3D-CT: a retrospective preliminary validation study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises evidence from both randomised trials and observational studies to determine whether lobectomy or sublobar resection offers improved outcomes for patients with stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsStudies (up to June 2025) comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge) for clinical stage Ia NSCLC (<2 cm) were included in the random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2 for randomised trials or Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions-I for observational studies.
results19 studies, including four randomised trials, were included. Overall survival at 5 years was comparable between lobectomy and sublobar resection (HR=1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; I²=26%), as was disease-free survival (HR=1.05; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; I²=0%). Sublobar resection was associated with significantly higher local recurrence (OR=1.86; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.25; I²=73%). No differences were observed in 10-year survival (OR=0.99; 95% CI 0.27 to 3.59; I²=86%) or postoperative change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference=-4.70; 95% CI -11.15 to 1.76; I²=99%). In 10 studies that mandated systematic hilar and mediastinal lymph node sampling, sublobar resection was associated with improved overall survival compared with lobectomy (HR=0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.965; I²=0%).
conclusionLobectomy and sublobar resection offer comparable long-term survival for patients with stage Ia NSCLC. While sublobar resection is associated with higher local recurrence rates, subgroup analysis suggests that when intraoperative systematic hilar and mediastinal lymph node sampling is performed, sublobar resection may offer a survival advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.